[ThunderRd]

Originally Posted by Roadkill08

We’re all supporting the same cause... It rubbed me the wrong way when I thought somebody tried to pawn it off as there own. I see ccperf721p isn't that type.

No, he's not, and that should settle the whole mess, IMO.

Thanks fer comin' back See you at the other forum.

-TR

Here is the post from Bruce, site moderator, that Roadkill mentions:

by bruce on Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:52 pm

"7up1n3 wrote:One more thought.

Say you have a set period of time. Does the science benefit from having more WUs submitted within that period of time? Makes sense to me."


I can offer an example where you're correct and another example where you're not correct. I'm not going to do either one because it would just be contributing to a never-ending discussion.

This is an old argument that went on for pages and pages and pages on the previous forum. We finally had to shut it down because nothing new was being said, just incessant statements of disagreeing personal opinions with no possible way to resolve anything.

Please re-read Vijay Pande's post on page 2. Folding Forum • View topic - 1000PPD increase with Intel Quad & 2 *ubuntu SMP clients

I think it's time to lock this discussion.

I followed this thread as well as the old one on the old forum; it got pretty heated. Essentially, Pande Group wants us to give them the results as quickly as possible, for each WU. This helps the science the most. There is a new plan, not implemented as yet, to re-vamp the point system for F@H. Perhaps it would be a bonus schedule for completing WUs in advance of the deadlines; I don't know, and they aren't saying yet. In any case, it would most likely be aimed at compensating users running ONE FAH CORE PER PHYSICAL CORE, and would make all of our best-laid plans academic, in the end. I'm not giving an opinion; you can form one yourself. If you want to be better informed, read the whole thread.

I experimented with two clients only because I got this q6600 and wanted to see what it would do. YMMV.